Posted
by
Roblimo
on Friday February 25, 2011 @10:08PM
from the let's-not-go-there-on-vacation-this-year dept.

An anonymous submitter wrote: "Disturbing reports have come out of Zimbabwe about how a professor who regularly held gatherings to discuss different news topics and social issues, was arrested, charged with treason and tortured for having the audacity to gather the regular group of about 45 people who discuss these things, and showing them some BBC and Al Jazeera news clips about the uprising in Egypt and Tunisia."
Quote from the article: "Under dictator Robert Mugabe, watching internet videos in Zimbabwe can be a capital offense, it would seem. The videos included BBC World News and Al-Jazeera clips, which Gwisai had downloaded from Kubatana, a web-based activist group in Zimbabwe."

There is no such thing as "The People". If an occupation improves their situation, people will support it. If it worsens it, it will be rejected. I remember reading what a town elder said in "Generation Kill" - "We will build gold statues of president Bush up and down the main street as long as you give us proper sanitation and stay away from our women." Admittedly, that was out in the desert bush and the conditions inside the main cities are of course different, but it is probably representative for the si

No one likes an occupation.No one wants foreigners telling them how to run their nation.

Would they like us to build them power plants? Sure. Would they want us to give them running water? Of course. Do they want us forming their government for them the way we did in Afghanistan and Iraq? No way in hell.

Who cares about cultural identity or national borders when you don't have enough to eat, your children won't receive a proper education, and your life and freedom in any case is at the whim and mercy of whoever has the guns?

Why would they? The situation in Iraq resulted from there quite simply not being enough boots on the ground to keep the area safe and root out the warring forces kept in check by the Saddam regime. A top-rank general quit over this, referring to established doctrine on occupation and refusing to be involved. Everyone fell on each others throats, seeking power. That doesn't necessarily carry over to other situations, either for want of manpower or for the presence of powder-keg political situations.

The situation in Iraq resulted from us being there in the first fucking place. Before that you can thank the British for building a state out of a lot of separate groups that would rather not be together.

If I went seriously ill, you'd be damn right I'd be happy if someone ran my house and prevented me from dying. And in a long-term scenario, if the bombs fell and you or anyone else managed to become a feudal lord or other autocratic ruler of some kind, offering the only available shelter from roving bandits and control over irrigation or such, I'd most certainly pledge allegiance as long as that wasn't worse than the bandits or starvation. I assume most other people would, as well.

You forgot to provide examples of US support for the removal of Batista and Pinochet or to deny USG and US Corporations in installing them in the first place.

Also please provide said examples for General Videla (Argentina), Anastasio Somoza (Guatemala), Trujillo and Belaguer (Dominican Republic), this last one installed at gun-point by US Marines...And that is only in Latin America, if we throw in Asia and Africa, whew! you would have a lot of work.

If an occupation improves their situation, people will support it. If it worsens it, it will be rejected.

Since it is impossible to tell in advance how something like that would turn out, it is best to leave other countries alone. If that country's people want a change in government, let them fight for it themselves. That way, they will value it and the struggle will strengthen them as a people. If we (the US or any other country in a position to do so) interfere in another country's business, we weaken o

Suffering can gain you strength as a person by toughening you, and gives you the ability to understand the reality of it, but all I have seen suffering do to groups of people is weld them together, and I don't really consider that a good thing since it leads to tribalism and nationalism. "Us" vs. "Them" thinking. While I think I don't actually understand what the words even mean, I don't think "social solidarity" is a necessary or even good thing in society.

all I have seen suffering do to groups of people is weld them together, and I don't really consider that a good thing since it leads to tribalism and nationalism. "Us" vs. "Them" thinking.

Yes, suffering on such a scale does tend to bond people together, but I fail to see why you consider tribalism and nationalism to be a bad thing. It gives groups and nations a distinct identity and character. Why should that be needlessly sacrificed?

How many civilians do we watch die before foreign nations intervene? 100? 1000? 10000? how about 100,000? Surely when it's over 100,000 murders [wikipedia.org] the UN security council would have made some course of action? That's no longer 'interfering', it's stopping an on-going genocide. I would think those people would be forever grateful.

This is why it worked in Europe after WW2. The situation could not have been more favorable for the US.

1) The population was fed up with the war, the Nazis and everything. Even US (hell, for some even USSR) occupation was considered better than that. That situation is still there, and you will notice that (as in your example) many people will welcome the US as a liberation force, even if it means occupation.

2) The US sent aid. And I don't mean "built some factories". They sent food, they sent medication, they sent clothing. They sent what the people needed to survive and the people LOVED the US for that. You can still, 60 years after, hear people talk very favorably about the US and ignore anything they have done recently, simply because of that.

3) There was the "evil Russian" right next door. That occupation force (which lasted 'til the 1990s, btw, and some bases still exist) was seen as a safeguard against the aggressors across the border. That's something we lack today.

4) The US showed that there is keen interest in handing the country back to its people. And here's where the whole thing starts to crumble. Now, the US cannot do that because of the 'terrorists'. And they only exist because they omitted step 2: Win the people, not just the war. After any war is over, there will of course still be sympathizers for the old regime or even a different regime. They are, though, usually the minority. A war against people who despise your government more than their own cannot be won. For reference, see Russia vs. Afghanistan. And the outlook was very favorable at the end of the conquest of Iraq, there was a very strong pro-US sentiment in the country. What the US failed to do was to shower the people with supplies to clearly show them that they are there to aid, help and be the friend of the Iraqis. Building factories ain't going to cut it when around the corner there's the guy from Al Quaida handing out bread.

There is a huge difference between Iraq and Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe the opposition party has win most of the recent elections but Mugabe will not give up power. Unlike Iraq where there were a number of violently competing faction vying for power there is already a viable elected replacement government in Zimbabwe. Take a look at the Movement for Democratic Change party. There was supposed to be a run off in the last election but the MDC candidate withdrew citing the probability of his supporters being murder

Who cares about "friends"? If no-one steps up and forces justice and freedom, it won't happen. It doesn't matter who gives the order, or who holds the guns. If the situation is as described, the problem becomes even simpler, since it's easy to declare when the occupation will end - when the "good" party is in power, and the government has access to enough force to police the people in the area.

There is absolutely NO guarantee that direct military intervention is going to result in something better, either short or long term. There are examples from history when it has worked, but there are many more examples where it has failed. Do the people of Zimbabwe, as a whole, even want our help?

And frankly, we just can't afford to keep invading and rebuilding every country in the world with a shitty government.

It would be nice if the European colonial powers took responsibility for their former co

It would not require a full fledged invasion to help Zimbabwe. All that would be required one SEAL tam to go in, apprehend Mugabe,present him to The Hague on charges of Crimes against Humanity and neighbouring African peacekeepers to protect the citizens in case the military or Mugabe's tribe gets out of hand.

The US is not the world police but who will help people under oppressive regimes? I thought that one of the tag lines for the US was "Bastion of Democracy". Zimbabwe was one step from democracy in the

When did our options become limited to invasion or not doing a damn thing? How about we start with some diplomatic action? Or even just public demonstrations? No nation can survive on it's own. And dictators actually do sometimes care about how they look to the outside world - that's why they try to keep stuff like this silent.

You're right, of course - but from (my) European view, this has been tried and failed. At least from outside of Brussels, it looks like everything has slid into apathy and a status quo of food shipments and oppressive dictators setting the standards for what constitutes "human rights".

Yes...I have noticed much of this myself here in America as well. So much so that I'm quite confident that apathy is the greatest enemy mankind has ever seen.

But still, it is worth keeping in mind that rights are not something that just happens. They aren't given to you, you have to take them. In a case like this, I would say that means going out and raising awareness, and harassing your government until they do something about it.Also, the apathy may seem worse than it is - because people sit there, not do

I mean harassing your own government/citizenry. Harassment of the Zimbabwe government is up to the people living there - and yes, they damn well better be serious about it if they decide to do so. But you do not face such risks. Hell, harass the Zimbabwe government too while you're at it - just don't go there to do it in person.

How about we start with some diplomatic action? Or even just public demonstrations?

I thought you were going to advocate something other than "not doing a damn thing". For what it's worth, how the US treats Cuba (prohibiting companies which do business with the regime from doing business in the US) provides some sort of intermediate sanction. Things like no fly zones (how the US treated Iraq prior to the Iraqi invasion) are another. These seem pathologically passive-aggressive to me, but it's a start, I suppose.

It would be unpopular in the US, due to fiscal reasons, and internationally, because the Western Europeans and their friends seem to think that killing is evil, No Matter What. These are the same morons that bitched about Saddam Hussein's execution.

Don't generalize. I'm Swedish, and I think most people just don't want to think about stuff like that, so they adopt whatever principles that's most convenient to them, and get defensive when they are challenged since they are forced to think about horrible things. Developing an intellectually coherent morality isn't something that comes automatically - and notably, in Swedish society at least, flaunting views like this based on pure emotion is considered something very profane and impolite.

Well, in general the people who are opposed to killing are right. They are right from an ethical standpoint but they are also right from a practical standpoint. Killing servers to make the killed a martyr, and thus a rallying point, for the supporters left behind. If you really want to punish a dictator keep him in prison for life where he is treated just like any another criminal.

How have sanctions ever done anything useful? All they do is hurt the residents of his country -- which are literally starving and require food aid programs to survive. Sanctions or not, Mugabe will be living large and laughing loud.

I'm not advocating military intervention, btw. I don't really see that helping much either.

Similarly, I don't see how putting trade sanctions on Libya is going to do anything but hurt your average Libyans.

It doesn't matter if they do or not. Consider Fallujah, Iraq. The chief instigators were Al Queda in Iraq, headed by Zarqawi, and miscellaneous foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia, Iran (yes, even though they're Shiite), Chechnya, etc. How did these bad dudes gain power and force the local inhabitants to work for them? They were willing to do what we weren't. They would torture and kill anyone who worked with coalition forces, such as the Iraqi National Guard headed by LtCol Suleiman (RIP), and they jus

The problem is that the 'civilized world' doesn't want to see its children shot and blown up saving some Africans on the other side of the world. My son is only 6 months old and I already sure as hell know I wouldn't want him risking his life 18 years from now in whatever despot nation is the hellhole du jour in 2029...

Don't you think that, while "right" probably doesn't factor into it, adults should be able to lay down their lives for a just cause if they choose? Although I agree that 18 is a low age as far as mental maturity goes, and I'm just barely 23.

It might have been better if we (The US) hadn't just sat on our hands and let this nut job take power back in 79/80. If I recall correctly it was the UK which effectively handed him power. He ran Zanu PF which was more or less a terrorist group.

If Zimbabwe rises up, we should position a carrier battle group and prevent Mugabe from using air strikes against protestors, but we should not land troops. It's their war, we cannot give freedom, they must take it.

Responsibility or borders or rules doesn't really matter in the end, what matters is suffering. That makes the reason pure empathy, even if only to prevent future suffering. Empathy varies wildly between individuals however, and if you don't feel like I do - then you don't.

Ignoring that I have ailments preventing me from serving (at least in the Swedish armed forces, but I could probably soldier in a kill-people position with a lot of physical training and being in a position where med supply isn't likely to be cut off) - What plane? Am I supposed to purchase one myself? And alongside whom? And with what guns and training?

More importantly while I realize that the situation isn't as simple as that, in cheering for armed intervention I don't really feel like I'm asking peopl

Manning, Assange, everyone in that concentration camp the US has build. All political opponents. Easy to verify also, hence the lack of proof and fair trails. This article seems like selected indignation to be honest. Sure it's bad, but this guy got tortured once... the US does this every day to many hundrerds, if nog thousands of people. At least this guy got to talk the press about it. He actually got a better treatment than the self-proclaimed good-guy of the world gives him. And to be honest... it's no

If that's true, they're mentally torturing him as a punitive measure. I can't imagine that it's out of fear of him leaking anything else, that's just stupid, you wouldn't have to stick someone in a signal-proof bunker for that. Even if he allegedly did the leak partly to somehow get back at his superiors, and planning to just dump out all that potentially life-critical information was really irresponsible and childish, that's just excessive.

I hope that you do some research and assuming that you are an American, you will do everything in your power to bring to justice those involved and not just play " Really? I didn't know." Now you know.

You do realize that does and did are separate things right? some things happened, the op said they are still happening. Citing things in the past that have stopped because of much public outrage is not "US does torture a few in Guatamala." At best, it's "US did torture a few in Guatamala." and that's a completely different statement.

So, maybe it doesn't happen today in Guatemala, but it does happen today in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo and perhaps other places we don't know about; because it stopped in Guatemala every thing is all right...

According to your logic we should have let the Nazis off after the war because they were no longer torturing and killing people.

No, no, no. Such people must be brought to justice and face the music for they crimes, if they were American or Guatemalan, it does't matter.

Yes, there was torture by the CIA in Guatemala... 20 years ago. If you've got stories of newer stuff, link those. GGP is clearly talking about Guantanamo, for a variety of reasons. I'm pretty sure there weren't a whole lot of Muslims involved in the Guatemalan civil war, Dubya hadn't even gotten into politics at that point, and the story he is referring to in the original comment is Guantánamo Detainee Release Blocked by Appeals Court [nytimes.com]

Assuming that the AC is "schizoaffective", I've seen people write like that when they're on their meds; apparently they don't just pop you back to normal in many cases. And sometimes a valid point gets lost in the garble. Had an interesting discussion once where the situation slowly slid more and more from programming logic into "symbolic logic", with no discernible snapping point. Fascinating, but horrible.

It's a non-sequitur to point out that the regime which overthrew the last regime while promising a better political/social order has not delivered.

Okay then...

I'm sorry I don't have the silver bullet for the country's woes. An initial idea might be the removal of the Mugabe regime. Pointing out the faults of that regime might actually be a start in the removal of it, actually.

The trick to being a good dictator is to satisfy a hard-core minority of your supporters so that they will control the majority.

You mean the army. Thats pretty much how most of the dictators roll, they wrest control of the army away from any civilian government and the rest is cake. Thats definitely how the North Korean regime stays in power. No matter how big the personality cult, I would be willing to bet that if Kim Jong Il pissed off the wrong general he would be meeting an "unfortunate accident"

Yep. Countdown to someone calling you a racist in 5... 4.... anyway, Rhodesia wasn't perfect, but under Mugabe's "enlightened" slaughter of the white man, things went from being Africa's breadbasket as Rhodesia to widespread starvation that aid programs struggle to meet. The murdered whites' land was given to his cronies that didn't know the first thing about farming -- they were soldiers, thugs, and death squads, not agriculturalists.

Mugabe has been doing this sort of thing for a very, very long time. How it's any surprise to anyone is beyond me.

Go to Wikipedia and look at Mugabe's list of honorary degrees -- most of which have now been withdrawn -- and the comments people made when awarding them to him. He hasn't changed. The people who laughed at and support his earlier genocide are now just realizing that Mugabe has never been a nice guy, at all.

I do not support apartheid or white minority rule, but there are better ways to move the country forward than murder of all political opposition and everyone of a certain skin color. Yes, the white minority governments in Africa did this as well, but it was wrong when they did it, and it is wrong now. I don't see how the tragedy that was colonialism in any way justifies his actions.

It isn't political correctness per se, it's just that it's the thing keeping their mind off the harsh realities of the world. Of course, people who do face these "harsh realities" seems to often have other mental or emotional flaws.

I fail to see how this is really news... Zimbabwe has a pretty bad human rights record, and stuff worse than this happens around the world all the time. A number of Universities have withdrawn honorary degrees given to Mugabe. The only difference here is the person whose rights were abused was a law professor.

How many people will the US government kill by gun, by bomb, by manipulating foreign regimes? How many in its own country will be left destitute or gratuitously incarcerated, unable to access good healthcare and with challenges far beyond most man's capabilities, because of an unequal law and unequal balance of power? How many vulnerable people will be will be denied the help they need because of some bureaucratic box-checker with a quota to achieve, then die because they can't afford the heating bill?

Sorry, luv, wrong continent. Yes, access to healthcare for a 2 year old is, on the civilised side of the pond, considered "a human right". Recall that "right" is simply a label for some long-standing privilege regarded as universally applicable by common consensus. Recall also that consequent action/inaction is the result of human diplomacy and legislation, not any inherent natural property or gift from on high, regardless of what the (often very sensible) Founding Fathers said.

You know what? You're right! Why bother with healthcare for little children where almost no investment has taken place that could be saved by healthcare? I think we should discover the break even point where the treatment costs balance against the general investment so far in a person (considering education and all), I would expect that around age 7 or 8 this BEP is reached, below that age healthcare is a waste of money.

I don't think you understand what was happening when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.

even though Southern Rhodesia declared independence shortening it's name to Rhodesia in '65 or so, the entire world still recognized English colonial rule over it until 1980 or so when England finally release claim on it. England maintained it wouldn't release it's claim to it (and all their colonies) until they were governed under a majority rule. [wikipedia.org] Anyways, in 78-79 a biracial party was formed to govern and the Lancaster house agr

Gitmo can't be shut down because Americans are too spineless to lock up the prisoners on our soil.Troops in Iraq are being drawn down responsibly. It was a mistake to go in, but that doesn't mean we should make it worse by yanking everyone out at once.Troops in Afghanistan were always supported by virtually everyone.The tax rates were extended because the fascist GOP held unemployment benefits hostage. "Give us billions in tax cuts, or we let millions of innocent people die in the streets!"I also note tha

The UN doesn't have an army. Who would the UN send into the repressive regimes to oust them? Who do you propose should get shot at / blown up and otherwise killed in the name ousting the repressive regimes?